Another Round Begins in The Middle East

[Chemical Ollie]

I think the use of airforce alone is an incredibly stupid way to wage war in the 2000's, unless you are a cruel dictator whos' give a **** is broken.

Special forces or SWAT teams with close-range weapons and strict rules of engagement is the way to operate. You may lose a few more soldiers on your own side in the short term, but you will be killing the opposition more effectively, with lower risk of losing the extremely important propaganda part of the war, making it easier to achieve your long term goals. And a shorter war means less deaths on your own side as well, even if they increase in the short term.

The way Israel is handling Gaza is simply moronic. First of all, they opress the whole population to create huge frustration. Then, as soon as the frustration leads to desperate responses by a few extremists, they use airstrikes instead of pinpoint operations, which in the short term will kill some terrorists along with hundreds of civlilians, but in the long term will only make the situation worse. More frustration, more terrorists, more attacks against Israel.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think the use of airforce alone is an incredibly stupid way to wage war in the 2000's, unless you are a cruel dictator whos' give a **** is broken.

Well it appeared to work wrt: Kosovo, so I think that's what put it into vogue.

[Sirotnikov]

re:

And what about the occupation, again?

Again, I'm not sure what your point is.

Prolonged occupation that leads to defensive war is a bad idea, that creates more problems that it solves, unless you are inhumanely ruthless.

Nowhere have I called for a prolonged occupation of Gaza. Actually nowhere have I called for anything. I'm simply neutrally describing what I think will shatter Hamas, and what will not.

A reoccupation of Gaza and a two month long siege with house to house operations will obliterate Hamas, and stop rocket fire completely.

Until Israel has done that, there is no point saying Israel has seriously tried to destroy Hamas.

The problem with that, that I acknowledged earlier, that you need someone to take your place -> you need a new government.

That part failed in 1982 Lebanon due to Syrian and Iranian involvement, and Lebanese inner fighting.

Had the Maroon government idea worked, you'd see a different middle east, with no Hezbullah and a strong pro western Israeli - Lebanese - Jordanian front.

But the 1982 offensive clearly was a spectacular victory over Fatah-land. Something thought impossible by many.

[Chemical Ollie]

DP

[Sirotnikov]

The way Israel is handling Gaza is simply moronic. First of all, they opress the whole population to create huge frustration. Then, as soon as the frustration leads to desperate responses by a few extremists, they use airstrikes instead of pinpoint operations, which in the short term will kill some terrorists along with hundreds of civlilians, but in the long term will only make the situation worse. More frustration, more terrorists, more attacks against Israel.

I agree with some bits and completely disagree with others.

Pressure on the population is not doing anything in the long term. Starving out the Hamas govt. is a nice idea, but eventually, people need hope, if we want them to rebel.

I also agree that for a long time Israel has not been pin point enough, and thought that pressure on the public or on the Fatah government was playing in its favor. It was sometimes correct, but usually wrong.

I completely disagree with the "few extremists" characterization. hamas is a strong organized group with a clear agenda. In many cases local people tried to interfere with their rocket launching, only to be shot in the face.

Airstrikes are pinpoint operations.

It is much more exact and much less costly in palestinian civilian lives, than if Israel had entered a platoon of combat engineers to destroy the building, and two brigades to defend the combat engineers. Imagine how many civilians would die in the shoot-out.

The rockets used are small, and attempts to minimize life loss are made.

Often missile attack targets survive, because they were in a different side of the car. That's gotta tell you that the warhead is pinpoint small and targetted.

[Sirotnikov]

Special forces or SWAT teams with close-range weapons and strict rules of engagement is the way to operate. You may lose a few more soldiers on your own side in the short term, but you will be killing the opposition more effectively, with lower risk of losing the extremely important propaganda part of the war, making it easier to achieve your long term goals. And a shorter war means less deaths on your own side as well, even if they increase in the short term.

True.

Israel had a brilliantly successful unit for that in Gaza in the 70s and early 80s.

IIRC one of its notable leaders was Meier Dagan, current head of Mossad, and a close friend of Sharon.

It was later disbanded and regular GIs were put in action which obviously brought bullies with bully attitudes and less trained and equipped soldiers in the midst of civilians, and things sorta spiraled out of control.

Several such units still operate in the west bank with great success.

However, the SWAT team you talk about requires absolute control of the territory, and a clear upper hand in intelligence, free movement and many other things we don't have in Gaza because of its autonomous state since 1994.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Nowhere have I called for a prolonged occupation of Gaza. Actually nowhere have I called for anything. I'm simply neutrally describing what I think will shatter Hamas, and what will not.

As you have pointed out that leaves a power vacuum. You can't just "shatter Hamas" without anything to take its place. And if you want something friendly, you are going to have to occupy it. Otherwise, you are just setting it up for more displease Pals to take their place (especially after all the collateral damage that obviously would happen after "shatter Hamas" was completed). Basically, its the issue the US had in Iraq. The long term outlook, because the short term is very easy.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Sprayber


What exactly would Israel do with Gaza if there was a full scale invasion? Is Israel going to run Hamas out only to have them replaced by someone else?

Maybe?

Palestinian Authority officials in Ramallah said Saturday that they were prepared to assume control over the Gaza Strip if Israel succeeds in overthrowing the Hamas government.

"Yes, we are fully prepared to return to the Gaza Strip," a top PA official told The Jerusalem Post. "We believe the people there are fed up with Hamas and want to see a new government."

[Imran Siddiqui]

Of course Fatah loves it .

[TCO]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov


Lebanon was also a case of unwillingness.

The cabinet and army top brass did all they could to try and win the war by airforce alone.

Of course that is incredibly dumb, and impossible. So while we hurt Hezbullah, we haven't crushed them because almost no land forces were used, and you can't actually wage a war without maneuvering forces and controlling land with boots on ground.

War is more than target destruction by firepower.

Infact, the army's original plans were thrown in the trash by the former pilot chief of staff, who directed confused small scale raids against strategically unimportant areas on the border.

There was tons more wrong with that war, but no doubt, had we used the ground forces and invaded, most of Hezbullah's army would have dissolved. Hezbullah sustained a huge shock in the last 48 hours when we finally made a ground move.

The US is good at campaign style warfare. Really the last country out there with WW2 type skills/traits/planning. Staying around kinda sucks though.

[Naked Gents Rut]

If only we would learn the lessons of WWII.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

Yes, this is what is usually called "casus beli".

Never figured you as so dense.

That you have an excuse for your actions doesn't remove the inherent responsibility for them.

Israel could have chosen to open up full relations with Hamas - it didn't. It chose to confront Hamas militarily. You can argue why one path is better than the other, but denying that Israel chose its path is moral cowardice.

You're welcome to prove I honor religious fundamentalists of any sort.

When did you become the whole Jewish people?

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by GePap


What would a Hindu nationalist know of the bible?

In case you're not aware of the fact, I'm an atheist, a nihilist, and I don't think that the word "Hindu" has any coherent meaning.

Nice try at a flame, though, failure as it is.

[David Floyd]

I still don't understand. What is it about failing to respond to the attacks that people think will provide a good solution to Israel?

Face it - if Israel proves that they will back down if you launch rockets at them, that will simply invite more terrorists to lob rockets at Israeli civilians. That's the whole argument for not paying ransom to kidnappers - it will simply create more kidnappers.

Of course history has shown that a military response to terrorism won't stop the terrorism. But you know what? At least it will kill a few terrorists, and it's CERTAINLY better than the alternative.

And by the way, when you are being faced by an opponent that resorts to suicide bombers and rocket attacks against civilians, then I'm perfectly willing to forgive a few "crimes against humanity", as the UN might define them. For example, if attacks are being launched out of a certain area, then give the civilians x amount of time to clear out. At the end of that time, Israel bulldozes the area, mines the **** out of it, and creates an instant DMZ. "Crime against humanity", the UN might say. "Prudent defense measure" is what I'd call it, especially when the civilians living in that area could avoid it by rising up against the terrorists, by giving them up to Israeli intelligence, and by refusing to let their neighborhoods be used as bases for terror.

People, this isn't tough. If you tacitly approve of terrorists, don't be surprised when you are treated as a terrorist. That's perfectly fair, no matter what the UN says.

[TCO]

I'm interested in what Siro, Eli and any other Isr. (except don't bring Panag) think about:

1. The more extreme bellicose American statements.

2. What is the eventual end-state of Isr.? It seems like an unstable equilibrium...